Skip to main content

About your Search

English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
the obama administration insisted the assault was a protest that got out of hand. fox news confirmed u.s. intelligence did indeed know it was a terror attack of 24 hours of that evening. bill: yesterday the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the defense secretary finally statedding the obvious. >> it was a terrorist attack. as we determined details of what took place there and how that attack took place that it became clear there were terrorists who planned that attack. that's when i came to that conclusion. >> day after or was -- >> took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location. >> there was a thread of intelligence reporting that groups in the environment in western, correction, eastern libya, were seeking to coalesce but there wasn't anything specific. bill: well, peter doocy is live in washington drilling down on the specifics. peter, if the administration knew it was terrorist attack in 24 hours, why did they not just say that? >> reporter: we heard from administration officials there is ongoing investigation and more details wi
policy wise? >> the obama administration has never had a foreign policy. bill, he's only had this assortment of confused, naive initiatives poisoned by ideology, deformed by politic, driven by politics, and the only thing these initiatives in the foreign affairs realm have had in common has been their failure. if you look from benghazi to beijing, in this afro-asian realm of crisis, there is not one troubled country, not one, not russia, not china, certainly not iran, afghanistan, pakistan, certainly not israel, not one country in which relations are healthier or more constructive than under george w. bush, and that was a pretty low standard. >> bill: what do you say, colonel hunt? >> i think the specificity of the policy when you look at libya in which we wanted a lower american profile with the weakest profile we've had security since 1979 first ambassador we had killed failed. in afghanistan issues we have people training, killing us. that is not -- and the surge was supposed to crush the taliban. the commander on the ground reports says the taliban is back. he talked abou
court is now back in session for the first time since it ruled on the obama administration's landmark health care law last june. so how might mitt romney change the high court if he becomes president of the united states? he's already giving all of us some major clues. let's bring in cnn's crime and justice correspondent joe johns who's taking a closer look. what are you seeing? >> the supreme court doesn't get talked about that much on the campaign trail. but choosing a justice is one of the most important things a president does. it's how on administration puts its mark on some of the nation east toughest, most divisive issues. and we have a look at how mitt romney might handle it if he's president. whenever mitt romney fielded questions during the primaries about his picks for the supreme court, he was armed with a stock republican answer. >> what i would look to do would be to appoint people to the supreme court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to to legislating from the bench. >> reporter: but he wouldn't choose a favorite. >> would you pick one, please? >> y
's running, what year they're running, you become the tool of a political despot. the obama administration will feed you a narrative, which works on these people, and have you vote. >> bill: the media is a sellout media, and exactly what they did in 2007 and '08 they are doing here. could you imagine "60 minutes, they ought to be embarrassed. mr. president, you promised to cut the deficit in half in your first term, $6 trillion in debt, you said bush was unpatriotic and irresponsible for four years. explain. they don't ask fundamentals. fewer americans are working in spite of your caveats, mr. president. explain. explain all of the -- never does he get asked simple questions. >> well, the media complicit here and the collusion, which is what it is, is obvious. when univision does -- credit to them -- for asking tougher questions, never getting an answer, but asking tougher questions of this president, that's amazing. i mean, they've abrogated their responsibilities as media and the american people, what we hear in this howard stern audio, is the result -- it's partially the result of media
for hosting us here. let's get our way to prosperity. oil, gas, coal, nuclears, all of the above. the obama administration is standing in the way of what could be an exciting explosion of energy. we have so much coal, so much oil and gas that we know how to get without harming the environment. this puts people to work, this creates manufacturing jobs. it helps people heat their homes warmer in the winter, coomer in the summer. that means people living on fixed income have more income to live on. this is important because with an energy policy like the keystone pipeline, like opening up our lands for development, we can put americans back to work and stop giving money overseas to the middle east. it helps our foreign policy, it helps our economy, it helps our pay checks. [applause] another area, as i mentioned, you have all these people in between jobs. for every people that got a job last month, which is a good thing, nearly four people have stopped looking for a job. we are slipping behind. and what we see when we look at the faces, when we talk to the people, when we see the names, it is
to provide for themselves and their families. i think that is why the obama administration's objective is essentially using bread and circuses to make as many people as possible dependent on government, to keep voting democratic, is not succeeding. americans want to stand on their own feet. >> that is the craziest thing i ever heard of my life. you are accusing the president of united states of using a government program to manipulate people do not get a job, to be dependent on the government for services? impressed. we are a few minutes and -- >> let me finish. pressed we're a few minutes and and you have now three times call me crazy on observing that the president has expanded government dependency. >> you are saying he is manipulating american civil democratic. -- so they will vote democratic. >> let's talk about the issue of benefits. in 1960, 20% -- of federal spending went to individual spent -- payments. this year, 65% of federal spending goes to individual payments. i would suggest we do have a problem with government -- >> we had a downturn in the economy. we of hard times, p
? it tells you this is a political move that president obama does not look weak on terror. men and women are dying. >> eric: greg? >> greg: i can't tell if this is an administration or five women who can't decide where to brunch. nobody is communicating. i feel bad for generals. if the generals complained about birth control obama would call them. or maybe make sandra fluke a general and better lines of communication. this is what happens when you spend more time with joy behar than intel briefings. >> eric: bob, simultaneously over the weekend, sunday, the death toll, casualty count went over 2,000 in afghanistan. president obama on the stump saying al-qaeda is dead. his own general, guy leading troops in afghanistan saying al-qaeda is not dead. they are back in force. >> eric: initial al-qaeda responsible for 9 are dead. keep in mind every terrorist group in mideast and north africa take the name of al-qaeda because it's well-known name and something they raise money from saudis with. there is a more fundamental question. when is enough is enough? time to get out of the country. if rus
that the obama foreign policy is unraveling literally before our eyes on our tv screens. >> i think it interferes with the depiction that the administration is trying to convey, that al qaeda is on the wane, that everything's fine in the middle east. >> you think it's political? >> i think there are certain political overtones. how else could you trot out our u.n. ambassador to say it was spontaneous? >> maybe it was. >> five days later? that doesn't pass the smell test. it was ever ignorance or willful intelligence. >> whether you agree with him or not, senator mccain has the credibility, a war hero, with great experience in washington dealing with foreign policy, how do you think, though, paul ryan did with that? is that turning the page? did that ring true? does that ring as credible saying president obama's foreign policy is unraveling? did that work? >> there is a time and a place for everything. the day after an ambassador's death is not the time to rush out and hold a press conference in america. and by the way, i said the same thing. well, i thought democrats were shameless during the ira
, brought in former generals, people from the bush administration who were not neocons. >> seconderm folks. icri. haven'tonehat wh they wento theesti focus on theice president, they needed to sort of bring somebody in. that is what joe biden did for obama in '08. that was the counter to john mccain. and they haven't done that. and i - it's going to be difficult for them to do that in the nextouple weeks. and goingnto that last debate whereygoto taing out is stuff, this is going be an issue, they're going to need to frame that up before they get there or it's going to be difficult for them to have much of a debate among, no, i'm better, i'm worse. >> i feel like we're i an unsustainable spot. these issues are being forced into discussion even if they can't be forced into the politics. i feel like reckoning is coming on this in political terms. john stanton, "buzz feed's" d.c. bureau chief. you do great work. >> pleasureo b here. >>> all right. are you a college studt? y know any eg students? do you have any sense of how college students will vote this year if they vote? a bunch of political
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)